Talk:New Seven Wonders of the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 New Seven Wonders of the World was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 24, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Seven Wonders of the World article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Advert tag

The article reads like a brochure. This is an encyclopedia. There is no information about the history of the non-profit, who started it, how it is funded. There are no sources listed. What exactly is the relationship with the UN. etc.. this is a historical document, not an advertisement for the Jan 1 2007 announcement. -- Stbalbach 21:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Detailed information about the non-profit isn't really relevant to this article, but it might be collected into an article about the organization itself, if that's deemed important enough. As for the wording, I've taken a shot at rewriting much of the article (actually, mostly rearranging the information). I don't think it reads like an ad anymore (if it ever did), so I've removed the tag. - dcljr (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
All you did was re-word what was there, it's still an advert. The problem is, this organization is (likely) a scam. They charge money for votes, and can drop the free votes at their discresion - thus wealthy patrons can ensure one of the seven wonders with enough money (all of which goes to NWOC). And is NWOC really a non-proft? I don't know. They present themselves as being "official" and connected to UNESCO, but I have seen no such evidence, other than what they self-proclaim - I have not been able to find a neutral source or anything that gives them neutral legitimacy. It's like a "Who's Who" service where you can "purchase" an entry in the Who's Who catalog. It would be like Wikipedia allowing vanity articles "for a small fee". The whole thing looks and smells bad. I've added a POV tag because none of the sources are neutral. -- Stbalbach 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I Agree the entire article reads like an advertisement and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. Virtual circuit 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes Stbalbach, I totally agree. Not just the article but the whole campaign is deceptive.--Snjv 21:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The new7wonder site reads like a travel agency site (date 7-7-7). However, many entries on Wikipedia are hijacked by interested parties. As long as Wikipedia explains to itsSomething of the form: users that this is a possibility, I do not see a problem. It is not an encyclopedia but an open-to-all Wikipedia ! (LostPassword) 80.127.228.131 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I really think this does not fit in wikipedia at all. WillTheHedgehog 03:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
"alternative to the Seven Wonders" should stay "proposed alternative to the Seven Wonders" because it is not clear at all yet if the list is going to have the historic importance of the original list, nor is it clear what the impact of the list will be, or what is going to be done with it. Till now, all we know is, that it is a multimedia event by NOWC and Deureka Ltd., 50 % of the profits of which will be spent on restoration projects in the world, and that they will try to make the afghan buddhas one of these projects. 80.127.234.149 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UNESCO

I received this [edited] email from "WH-info" <wh-info@UNESCO.org>

Dear sir,

Thank you for your message. There is confusion but UNESCO does not participate to the seven wonders campaigns. Federico Mayor who was the last UNESCO DG is associated to the project but as an individual, not in the name of UNESCO.

Kind regards,

Souhila Aouak World Heritage Centre

198.3.8.1 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

i think it would be fair to mention that there have been consultations with UNESCO in the earlier stage http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/10/29/011029ta_talk_reincarnation_dept 80.127.225.54 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profit

There is no evidence that I have found anywhere that this is a for-profit operation. They strongly deny they are, claiming they give proceeds to cover running costs and for future restoration. If whoever is changing it back to say the organisation are for profit wants to keep on doing it, then please provide evidence. Otherwise, stop. 143.252.80.100 18:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Tom

Can you provide links showing these claims? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Here you go (http://www.new7wonders.com/fileadmin/resources/Press_clippings/Washington_Post_March14_2007_USA.pdf), same link as on the page. If you want the original article then I'll see if I can dig it out.
This link says absolutely nothing. Its a third party article which doesnt even mention the company name--Snjv 20:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


There is no legitimate, technical question about the "For-Profit" status. The company is neither a foundation or organization. As the name suggests, its a "Non Public Corporation". Its upto the company to declare its NON-Profit status if applicable. As it has not declared that, Its very natural and sensible to consider it a "For-Profit" entity. THe deceptions stems from the use by company of public figures in personal capacity (X officials from UNESCO and other professionals). And aggressive marketing campaigns by commercial media to encourage paid voting. Hence its important to make that clear to the visitors. Cause if Wikipedia doesnt do that, WHO WILL ?--Snjv 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The link says "The idea for the campaign came from Swiss Canadian filmmaker Bernard Weber, who, according to the group's website (new7wonders.com), formed the nonprofit foundation in Zurich in 2001 "to protect humankind's heritage across the globe" and alert people "to the destruction of nature and the decay of our man-made heritage."" They make clear that they are governed by the same rules as the IOC and the Red Cross www.new7wonders.com/fileadmin/resources/Press_releases/0706-new7wonders-and-unesco.pdf ). Now they may be lying, but you need to show me how. Merely saying they are a corporation is not enough - since they expressly deny making profit. A corporation can just be a way of giving an organisation a legal identity - it does not imply profit. Either respond to these points with contradictory information, or I will revert the page in 24 hours. 143.252.80.100 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Tom
The 2001 date cannot be right. The New7Wonders Foundation was founded in 2004. There was also a New7Wonders Ltd., which went into liquidation in 2003, and was liquidated in 2006. This is public information in the Swiss Commercial Register. (taken from www.shab.ch at 10-7-7) Here is a screenshot, AG means Ltd., Stiftung means Foundation. The stated purpose of the corporation was the definition and the marketing of seven new world wonders, the purpose of the Foundation (abridging) to document and restore world heritage, and (this part only from April to Oct 2004) to run "mobile and immobile exhibition platforms".80.127.225.54 23:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tom, please refer my reply in the "Company Name" section. N7WF is not the same financial entity as NOWC. N7WF has expressed aim of non-profit while NOWC has expressed aim of making profit. --Snjv 09:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please add "for-profit" in the first para (I wont because i need consensus). The public needs to know the truth. Please check the bottom topics "company name" and "Is it a scam" and take appropriate action to inform the people. --Snjv 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at their "Business Opportunities" page, you can read "Unique business benefits are available with New7Wonders - together we can make marketing and commercial history!". This is no proof whatsoever, but it is an indication to what they have in mind. And at http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=176 you can read " New7Wonders® has formally pledged to dedicate 50% of profits to global good causes in monument and building restoration and preservation" and "The aim of New7Wonders® is that the Official Declaration of the New 7 Wonders of the World Event, televised on July 7, 2007 - 07.07.07 to record audiences around the world, will reach more people on this planet then any other event has ever done (including potentially the Olympic Games and World Cup opening ceremonies). Seven years of marketing and promotion, billions of website hits, thousands of articles, a television series, news programmes, hundreds of millions of votes, positive branding and media coverage seen by more than 3 billion++ cumulative people across the globe will engrave the New 7 Wonders of the World in history for ever."
So? Having commercial partners does not proclude being a not for profit. Look at the IOC. 90.192.147.214 23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Tom
Read the site. There is New7Wonders Foundation and New7Wonders Corporation: " New7Wonders is based on a Foundation structure, with the New7Wonders Foundation having oversight of revenue distribution to good causes. The NewOpenWorld Foundation is responsible for voting and campaign oversight, and the NewOpenWorld Corporation exclusively exploits all media, commercial and marketing rights for New7Wonders. [..] New7Wonders has formally pledged to dedicate 50% of profits to global good causes in monument and building restoration and preservation." This means that 50 % of the profits of the Foundation goes to restoration, by formal pledge, but does not say anything on the profits of the Corporation. The Foundation has a limited purpose. http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=176 80.127.229.239 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It is NewOpenWorld Corp, not N7W Corp. It may be that both (non-Swiss) NOWF and NOWC transfer all their profits to (Swiss) N7WF, which distributes them. Then it is non-profit. Or it may not be. Corailrouge-eng 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right - but since they have always said that the operation makes no profit then either they are being deliberately disingenuous, or the profits are transferred in the way you imply. I think we should assume the latter in the absence of any evidence to the contrary Whippletom 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone have any objections to me adding in to the intro the following: "They claim to be non-profit, dividing takings between restoration work, running costs and funding for future similar projects"? I think we should get in the non-profit tag somewhere, even if prefixed by the words "they claim".

It's ridiculous that we don't have "non-profit," unqualified, up high - I hadn't realized it was gone, and I'm about to replace it. What are we going to do, demand to see an accountant's statement from every non-profit in the world before we credit them with that status? If they say they're non-profit we can say they're non-profit until reputable institutions or governments take them to court over it. Suspicions of bloggers and columnists are irrelevant. - DavidWBrooks 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

New7Wonders Foundation has claimed to be non-profit, not New Open World Corporation. That should go too, then. As it is a foundation, why explicitly mention that it is non-profit, btw? Corailrouge-eng 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 21 or 22

The article states that the list has been narrowed down to 21, but the list in the article has 22 items.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.14 (talk • contribs) .

Of course, this is Wikipedia, anyone can change the list to reflect what they want it to be. Also, don't count on the 21 being the correct 21. -- Stbalbach 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The 22nd candidate should be Mamayev Kurgan in Volgograd. That thing is amazing. I saw it in person.

The 22nd candidate should be the Potala Palace in Lhasa. How can you leave it out of this list?!

[edit] close to spam

Please don't stick references to this for-profit project in articles about every place that it likes to be associated with. Lots of folks have developed new "wonders of the world" lists. - DavidWBrooks 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Being a finalists is not notable. I've further removed it from other articles. This article and organization has been a constant source of wikiturfing for months. -- Stbalbach 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "no connection to UNESCO

Do we really need to mention that in the introduction? It's worth mentioning because of some past confusion, but that seems overly prominent, borderline argumentative. - DavidWBrooks 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering how they promote themselves, yeah, I think it is needed. Plus the WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the article. -- Stbalbach 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
But it does seem very abrupt and argumentative, as if we're saying "don't be fooled by these charlatans!" Is there some context we can add that explains why this unusual statement is so prominent, without making the lede too long? Maybe something along the lines of: "Despite confusion about its history (((link to a cite that says it is UNESCO-sponsored))), it is not related to UNESCO" - DavidWBrooks 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That's what it said originally basically. -- Stbalbach 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just incase people didn't realise I said the company who are deciding these new wonders cannot be taken as fact due to their voting system which, in the article says "organized by a Swiss-based, for-profit corporation called New Open World Corporation (NOWC). The selection is being made by free and paid votes, through telephone or online, with multiple votes allowed." To my this satatement makes New Open World's opinions seem inadmisable because it's for profit and allows multiple votes, maybe there should be a source added saying it. - 144.138.200.216

That's a good reason for making sure those statements are included in the opening. We don't need to editorialize about it in the article, however. - DavidWBrooks 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good morning america?

I'm removed a dab link at the top to Seven Wonders of the World which said it was a Good Morning America episode. ???? I must be missing something ... besdes, it's already linked in the first sentence of the article. - DavidWBrooks 21:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see the GMA mention now at the bottom of the SWW page. I still think the sweeping disambig is fine; if reference to the GMA show is needed - I don't see why - it should be done of the disambiguation page, not at the top of this one. - DavidWBrooks 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
On further thought - I'm having a lovely conversation with myself - I put a reference to it in this article, as a way to help readers who come to this pointless goofy list, looking for the other pointless goofy list. - DavidWBrooks 21:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should only be about the Swiss organisation's "New Seven Wonders" list. Since the Swiss list is more well-known than the Good Morning America list and if you look at other interwiki articles on "New Seven Wonders" or "Seven Wonders", its about the Swiss organisation's list as well. --205.124.145.254 00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is about the Swiss-based organization. -- Stbalbach 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, but the returned dab is baffling - it sends you to Seven Wonders of the World but there's there's nothing about GMA until a couple of screens down. (And why does it just say GMA when USA Today was also involved?)
I, for one, was stumped. A dab should send you to the article about the topic, not an article that happens to mention the topic in passing after a time. If we think this is necessary, a separate article on the USA Today/GMA list should be created - and I don't see why not, although I also don't know what to call it - and the dab sent to that article. The current setup will baffle people. Personally, I think the previous setup was better, but of course that's a judgment call.
I've tried expanding the dab just a bit, although I hate long items, to see if it helps. - DavidWBrooks 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I see agreed. Added a direct link to the section. -- Stbalbach 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Direct link is much better. - DavidWBrooks 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] very interesting link by kralizec

very interesting your link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6434001 nearly 5 lines and advertising banner.Alexlot 08:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A few points:

  1. the link was not added by me, so you could hardly call it mine [1]
  2. regardless, it meets the external links guidelines
  3. National Public Radio is considered a reliable source

My presumption is that this claim (as well as the vandalism claim you left on my talk page [2]) is in response to the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alexlot case I brought against you. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have written about a specific external link YOU have posted, you answer about a issue that it is discussed in anhother page. Good job, but your link is a commercial site because it contain advertising banner!!! After festivity i will write something in problematic administrators pages (if you are an administrator).Alexlot 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC) please don't cry!!!i have only written "who is the vandal". you have poster a external link with 4 lines e some advertising banner, against the wiki policy. I have posted a external link that it has been cancels 4 March without any reason after several weeks in "seven wonders" voice, weeks during which it was not vandalism. So not to make the victim.Alexlot 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Your English is significantly better than my Italian, but unfortunately I do not follow what you are trying to say. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyramids

According to the website, the Pyramids are no longer in contention with the other candidates to be one of the chosen wonders, according to the page on the site [3]. Should they be removed from the list? Morhange 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put in a discussion about that, but the wording will probably have to be tweaked. - DavidWBrooks 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Bias

The bottom paragraph of the "criticism" section sounds like personal bias on the part of the author to me (although I don't entirely disagree with it). Maybe that should be edited.

24.247.10.212 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Eldon K., June 15, 2007

Agreed - it's gone. - DavidWBrooks 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "Criticism" section is still a little biased. It should be informed that not only brazilian private companies made campaings for raising votes for specific candidates. It was a generalized practice in many participating countries, including in some that lost.201.81.34.48 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional Editing

Everybody please keep a close watch on the criticism/contenders page where the mischiefs are being made. It appears that some of the editors are adding or removing information either to promote the concept as a whole or to promote their favorite wonder. Both acts are unfortunate.

Its agreed that the company behind it is a for-profit company and it is also agreed that the company charges for extra votes and shares vote revenues with media companies. That makes it obvious that the voting concept/process is non-scientific and commercial.

Here are few references from UNESCO, WIKIPEDIA, N7W and other sources.

UNESCO press release
N7W Business opportunities page
Scam to make millions
Wikipedia news
Hype watch

--Snjv 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This article already, I think, makes it very clear that paid votes are accepted, that the results are not scientific or binding, that UNESCO or the UN has no role in the process, and that the corporation sells broadcast rights and merchandise. So it points out, often in the very first paragraph, all the limitations that you're concerned about.
The sources given above don't say much - the "trak.in" site is a complaint with no evidence, as is the "gridskipper.com" site (its big point is that that text messages cost money to send!) The UNESCO research is already linked the article and referenced, and the other item links back to this page.
The legitimate question that remains is the "profit" status of the operators, which seems murky, since there is new7wonders and also the New Open World ("corporation" or "foundation"?) - DavidWBrooks 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Trak.in and grigskipper.com do not carry a public opinion. Thats why they are mentioned in the discussion page and not on the article itself. As for the GridSkipper mention of Paid SMS, i can quote from India that the voting SMS costs Rs 6 while a normal SMS costs Rs 1 max. THe difference is shared by N7W and the telecome operator.
Yes, the artical makes it clear about absence of scientific/public bindings. It also makes clear that corporation sells rights, merchandise and votes. And thats what a significant section of public and wikipedia editors are criticizing. Hence the mention on the "Criticism" section.
There is no legitimate, technical question about the "For-Profit" status. The company is neither a foundation or organization. As the name suggests, its a "Non Public Corporation". Its upto the company to declare its NON-Profit status if applicable. As it has not declared that, Its very natural and sensible to consider it a "For-Profit" entity. THe deceptions stems from the use by company of public figures in personal capacity (X officials from UNESCO and other professionals). And aggressive marketing campaigns by commercial media to encourage paid voting. Hence its important to make that clear to the visitors. Cause if Wikipedia doesnt do that, WHO WILL ?
--Snjv 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It says the following in the very first paragraph - doesn't that make the situation very clear?

The selection is being made by free and paid votes, through telephone or online. The first vote is free to registered members and additional votes may be purchased through a payment to NOWF. In addition to the sale of votes, NOWF relies on private donations, the sale of merchandise such as shirts and cups, and revenue from selling broadcasting rights. Profits are split between covering running costs and funding future restoration.

- DavidWBrooks 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting silly. I made the editing to which you refer, Snjv, and it wasn't promotional. It was based upon the fact that they say they don't make a profit and you haven't contradicted that. But let's keep that discussion in the profit section, and let's refrain from questioning the motives of other editors - as per wikipedia terms of use.
Hi David, Sorry, if I was offensive. Please refer to my replies in the Profit and Company Name sections--Snjv 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No, not offensive at all. - DavidWBrooks 16:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi David, really i was too offensive, sorry again. And i apologise for putting my topic on the top, i am a first time user, will learn :D Please check the "company name" and "is it a scam" topics below for my latest scoop, should it go on the article page ?? --Snjv 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The author's bias is still in the text, through saying " downplayed or even criticized the contest.", because this presupposes the contest has any value. For sure it has not been "downplayed" that the event has been successful, but the value of the list itself has been criticized. (Not "even") 80.127.234.149 18:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Point partially taken: I have removed the word "even" - DavidWBrooks 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is very discrete about the fact that the vote is one in a series of events. The 7Wonders website said so explicitly until 8/7/7. That is why i put the natural wonders thing in the first paragraph. Also, the company does not just "say" they are going to develop the new 7 wonders of nature as the next event. It is on their site already, and nominations can be made on their site now. 80.127.228.222 22:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not very important in this article ... I suppose an article will be started for that contest, and all this debate can begin anew! - DavidWBrooks 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Company Name

SOMEONE PLEASE CHECK and HELP. Some commercial elements have Renamed the Original "New Open World Corporation" to "New Open World Foundation". And "For-Profit" to "Non-Profit". THey are reverting my corrections and instead I am being labelled as a VANDAL. PLEASE DO SOMETHING. Refer The Company's Website --Snjv 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As per the company website the name is New Open World Corporation "NOWC" and not New Open World Foundation "NOWF" that some reverting editors are claiming. The proof. Company Website NOWC terms and conditions. And I am being repeatedly labelled a Vandal when I fix it. PLEASE HELP, DO SOMETHING AND CALL MODERATORS
--Snjv 20:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the page. And not through being a "commercial element". Please read my comments in the profit section, and please do not resort to slander. Being a corporation does not imply being profit making, and nowhere have you provided any proof that they are. Since they explicitly deny profit-making activities, the onus is on you to prove otherwise.143.252.80.100 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tom
I will keep in the term corporation, although it strikes me that foundation is just as appropriate if they are non-profit making and also refer to themselves as a foundation (are the two mutually exclusive, does anyone here know? Do foundations require umbrella legal structures). But I will remove the reference to for-profit activities in 24 hours unless you provide proof. 143.252.80.100 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tom
On second thoughts, let me declare my interest. I am a journalist for a major paper (who would certainly fit the wikipedia conditions for citing sources) who was tasked with writing an article about these guys a fortnight ago. My editor came from the perfectly natural position that there must be a scam in it. So did I. I spent a good period of time researching the guys looking to catch them out and could get nothing substantive on them, except that they seemed a bit naively idealistic about what their scheme could achieve. What they said, and what I couldn't contradict (I won't put it on the page as it is independent research) is that 50 per cent of all profits go to restoration projects. Some of the remainder goes on costs, and the rest goes on setting up planned future projects - seven wonders of nature, seven wonders of modern world etc. So either they are above board, or they are committing fraud. Prove the latter and you've got me a great story and I will be extremely grateful. Otherwise, I think we should put in, with the appropriate links, that they are non-profit.143.252.80.100 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tom

The Onus of declaring themselves non-profit lies on the company itself. And the company "New Open World Corporation" or NOWC has not done that in any of their communication including their website or press releases. Instead of requesting me to prove that they are for-profit please provide a link that claims that NOWC is non-profit. The confusion is created by the company's deceptive campaign and profiteering based voting methods.

info about NOWC info about N7WF

And also by floating a parallel foundation called "New7Wonders Foundation" or N7WF. I agree that this foundation (atleast in the name) has an expressed aim of "aim of documenting, maintaining, restoring and reconstructing world heritage". Though N7WF have no legal stature to do that on any of the sites, as all the contesting sites are covered under UNESCO's world heritage program. The projects undertaken by N7WF are purely tiny token projects. No detailed information has been provided on the list of those projects. As per a highly publicized news one such project was creation of a 3D model of Bamian Buddhas. Any one with a insight with digital studios, knows how quick and cheap it can be. N7WF has no website or detailed information. And shares the same website with NOWC. Maybe the same premises and staff but definitely not the revenues. All the financial dealings happen in the name of NOWC as per the company's website and no mention of N7WF occurs when the company talks about the business. And NOWC has no expressed aim whatsoever about passing the money to N7WF. Firstly why two different entities if the purpose is same ?? Maybe because one of them is generating goodwill for the other to generate money. The website claims that the Foundation is behind the Corporation which appears as a joke, cause looking at the big picture, its the reverse case.

--Snjv 09:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


I just noticed the company website and press releases is full of ambiguities On terms and conditions they call themselves "New Open World Corporation" but on the page footer they call themselves "NewOpenWorld Foundation". When they mention about goodwill and restoration work (?) they use the name of entity as "New7Wonders Foundation". While this is what "New Open World Corporation" stands for. Business Opportunities All things are indicating its a HUGE SCAM my dear friends. --Snjv 12:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, I really don't understand your cynicism. It seems you have a personal vendetta against these guys. You may be correct, but since they have repeatedly said they are non-profit you really do need to provide evidence (beyond numerous blogs, who have no more evidence than you) that they are. If I was feeling pedantic, I could point to a dozen news articles from reputable sources, calling the entire operation non-profit. But I won't, since they probably have no more information than us. It seems entirely reasonable to me that the corporation can be an umbrella for the foundation, and I see nothing to contradict. What's more, their press officer personally assured me that they make no money. So she would have had to have been out and otu lying (don't worry, I realise independent research can't go in). We aren't going to agree on this now, but I won't revert the page if we leave any mention of profit either way out.143.252.80.100 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tom
Actually, I refer you to the wikipedia page on corporations and non-profit corporations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not-for-profit_corporation). Since these guys say they are non-profit, and (see above article) corporations can also be foundations, there seems to be no contradiction at all. I may even re-insert the non-profit tag.
Hi Tom, There is no personal vendetta. I am just trying to point out the fact that NOWC is a separate entity than N7WF. And if you see their site you will find the clear demarcation when it comes to the revenues. The have engaged into a deception where all "non-profit" talks come from N7WF whale all the "profit making" is done by NOWC. Is selling votes a "non-profit" activity ? Please check the topics below. --Snjv 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how selling votes precludes them being non-profit. That they make money, does not mean they keep money. And since they specifically talk about how the money will be spent by the foundation, I also don't see the demarcation or the deception. If you have evidence that all the money (or any) is being kept by the corporation, then show it.143.252.80.100 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tom
Can you see a single mention / press release by NOWC that it will forward money to N7WF or any other cause ? NOWC has absolutely made no such claim. The Foundation sure talks about giving their 50% money but the Corporation doesnt. The point here is to see the difference and who is getting the money. Dont you see the deception when an entity promoted by an individual is operating with three different names NOWC, N7WF and NOWF. And as per the common website the three of them have differently expressed their aims ? --Snjv 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know enough about company law to know how three different names affects the overall funding. We have to assume good faith - and even with different names (which may have a very good legal reasoning behind them, I simply don't have the expertise to know) there is nothing that you have shown that implies otherwise. But you are accusing these guys of being duplicitous and running a scam. If I did that in a newspaper, without far stronger evidence than you provide, I would be rightly sued. If you have evidence that they are trying to rip people off then, I ask you again, show it. Why don't you phone up their press officer and ask them directly? The number is on the site.143.252.80.100 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tom
Incidentally, the press officer told me - and I have no reason to believe otherwise - that they have 20 staff, who were drawing a salary but that she believed Bernard Weber was making no money out of it. You are alleging some complex system of front companies and a campaign of deception. That is fraud. If you want to put it in an entry then you need a legal standard of proof. Or, indeed, any proof. 143.252.80.100 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tom

[edit] Swiss or not ?

Is the Corporation Swiss-based, too ? I did not see the corporation name in the Swiss Commercial Register. The only entry I find is the New7Wonders Foundation one. I think registering is not obligatory for the NewOpenWorld Foundation, but for the NewOpenWorld Corporation it would be if it were Swiss (cf. eg. registration requirement). The Swiss registration data are at https://www.shab.ch/shabforms/servlet/forms/SearchView?lg=EN&TYPE=HR and there is a bit at http://www.zefix.ch/ 80.127.225.54 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (meaning that Swiss-based NOWC should become something like NOWC through Swiss-based N7WF ?

[edit] Is it a scam

First we need a little bit into the background of the individual behind the campaign. Thats Mr Bernard Weber who is being touted as a renowned businessman. But is he, here is a look at his cv from N7W site, and it shows no business venture what so ever. He is a curator, amateur pilot and filmaker. Bernard Weber CV. A quick look at one of the cases against him has shocking similarities with the current campaign. The case highlights attempt at creating a parallel unauthentic foundation in the name of a great architect. But the original foundation (where he once worked as a curator) fought hard and was deemed correct by the arbitration. Here is the link WIPO Case No. D2003-0251
The current scenario is similar but of a much gigantic proportion. And in this case the original organization that is UNESCO has hardly done anything to challenge it and inform the general public better. Other than on couple of occasions UNESCO mildly stating its stand UNESCO press release

The web is full of non commercial blogs that are questioning the campaign and deeming it a scam. Also please notice the visitor comments on these blogs.
Gopikrishnan on NewsVine
Trak.in
Gridskipper.com hypewatch
News 4, China
--Snjv 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

These blogggers are certainly questioning whether it is a scam, and their suspicion is mostly raised by the participation of the businessman, and the phone/vote charges. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any evidence, or even attempts at evidence, that it is a scam - only a couple of people wondering out loud, so to speak.
The long comment a screen or two above, from anonymous poster 143.252.80.100, who claims to be a journalist who looked into it and could find no evidence of a scam, is far from proof, but it's certainly interesting. - DavidWBrooks 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it amusing the whole thing is classed as a "non-profit" porganisation (as quoted on BBC). Which is equivalent to saying "however much money we make, we pay me Weber in wages". Looks like a tax dodge, utilising Swiss banking autonomy.--Koncorde 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Please source this. Cynicism is fine, but you need to back up what you say - especially as the article now implies a profit motive. My information is that Weber does not draw a salary (see thread "Company name")143.252.80.100 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Tom
Scurrilous comments on the talk page require nothing :D--Koncorde 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Completely false. Remarks of a potentially libelous nature must be removed from talk pages. --Laugh! 22:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Man has money. Man has company that does not have money and in fact shows a 'loss'. Man pays less tax. Cynical yes. But not unfounded. Anyway, from the mouth of Ms Viering via the BBC website:
"But the New7Wonders foundation says it has a commitment to conservation, and has pledged half what's left, after costs, to restoring and preserving cultural sites. The money will not necessarily go to the winning seven but Ms Viering says any project would be eligible to apply. The rest of the money will go towards running costs and to prepare for the organisation's future campaigns. But, so far, the foundation has no money to offer up to such projects. "We haven't actually made any money yet," says Ms Viering. "We've invested over 10 million euros to date in the campaign and we are still in the investment phase." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/6272956.stm
Which clearly shows a gap between the money made and the money paid out (if not at this exact moment in time). as a theoretical example - Recieving 10m. Paying out 5m in wages, 50% of remaining 5m (2.5m) to restoration, leaves 2.5m as what would traditionally be defined as "profit".--Koncorde 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I asked them precisely that question. The point is, 50 per cent goes on restoration, costs are covered, and then - as that extract says - the rest goes on future campaigns (new seven wonders of nature etc). So that's where, according to them, your remaining 2.5m goes.Whippletom 00:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Tom
I can't make changes to this page as it is closed to unregistered users. Please please please, if people want to put in that the company is for proift can they source it? Otherwise, can those statements please go.
Refer to the profits paragraph. There is some clarification on the company structure there,which really should be in the article. There is a Foundation and a Corporation. (http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=176 ). I do not see the problem in being "for-profit". It is a company, they have achieved a major marketing succes. Nothing bad about that! Even if it is for money, a Business is not a Scam . 80.127.234.149 18:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7 or 8 new7wonders?

Now that the Pyramids in Egypt have been made an honourary new7wonders candidate, does that mean that there will only be six more nominees chosen out of the remaining 20, thus making a total of 7 new wonders or will they still go ahead and choose seven more nominees out of 20, thus making a total of 8 new wonders?--Just James 07:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there are 8 new wonders (see article). I think that is weird that there are 8 new 7 wonders. Nocturnal Wanderer Sign here! 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's not let it be called "The" New Seven Wonders of the World

Seems wikipedia pages for the sites elected to this new list are being updated to mention that each of them has been elected as one of "the" New Seven Wonders of the World. I would suggest, if it be mentioned at all, that it at least be stated that the site was elected as one of "New Open World Corporation's" (rather than "the") New Seven Wonders of the World. The mentioning of these sites being elected seem not to lend weight to the historical or cultural importance of the sites, but more to boost the perceived relevance and importance of this new list. It should be clear that this is not "the" list; there can and certainly are others, and this is just one companies creation. Let's not create the impression it has any of the weight of the original Seven Wonders of antiquity. It is not "the" new list, but a new list, and from a private corporation.

I agree Paldiski 00:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point 90.192.147.214 01:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Tom
In the Finnish language Wikipedia this is done indeed so, using the name fi:NewOpenWorld Corporationin uudet maailman seitsemän ihmettä. The current name here is in any case misleading. -91.32.234.73 22:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm lucky that I could be able in this life to visit almost all of that "wonders" during my travels, well the first 3 (Great Wall, Petra and Christ the Redeemer) is out of question, any human know they exists and they are a magnific combination between nature/architeture skills. The rest could be replaced by history importance from several other ones, but its just my opinion so I just want to say it. Christ the Redeemer is a must see, I'm not religiuos but its the right thing in the right spot at the right time, want more then this?

[edit] Only one pyramid or pyramids, plural?

According to CNN's report on the results (see here) the entire Giza pyramid collection was given the honorary status, not just the one Great Pyramid. Did CNN get it wrong? 68.146.8.46 01:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • yes --200.126.153.25 22:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a web site that has the total vote count?

Is there a web site that has the total / individual candidate vote count? AMAPO 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the official website for more detail. They said that 100 millions votes in total via SMS and the official websiteEyas Hajeh 16:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thank you, but I'd like to see how many votes each monument recieved, to have it posted on the article
-AMAPO 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move mentions of election to a trivia section on wikipedia pages for elected sites

It is clear that these sites (Taj Mahal, Petra, etc), and their wikipedia pages, are being used to popularize this New Open World Corporation's "New Seven Wonders" list, and not vice versa. If it must be mentioned that the site is on the list, it should not be a prominent mention, as there is nothing prominent about this list other than the attention drawn to it by virtue of the attention the elected sites already receive. A single mention, in a trivia section, or somewhere further down, should suffice for this. Something of the form:

On July 7th, 2007, this site was announced as one of New Open World Corporation's list of New Seven Wonders of the World.

Vanyo 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

i think this is a correct observation. But you forget that people in the world love to make lists, and the NOWC gave them the opportunity to do this of major tourist attractions, drawing a lot of voters. Until there is something bigger in size, the event deserves to be mentioned. The Miss Universe contest has a Wiki, too, after all.

[edit] reduce size of non-chosen finalists

In a day or so, when traffic dies down, I think the list of the other 14 finalists should be shrunk to just a list - removing photos, flags, etc. to save bandwidth of those visiting the article. (I have removed the 7 winners from it, the avoid duplication) - DavidWBrooks 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attributes

These need explanation. Brutannica 00:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I request that user L stops calling my edits vandalism and removes the ridiculous threat to remove my editing rights that he added to my personal page. I believe my contributions are documented and well founded, no reason to call them vandalism. Schicchi 01:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

They are not. They are not WP:N complaints, they are not from a WP:RS. If I made threads on a forum talking about how I thought shoes were being used to oppress the masses, would that go into Shoe? Of course not. When Reuters or AP or hell, Fox, anyone who's actually established in the media makes a mention of it, you can add that. Otherwise, it's just internet chatter. --Laugh! 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
L, threads were NOT started by myself, do not imply I have done so. I will revert to last version, you'll need to understand wikipedia is made by several points of view, not only yours. I never stated that complaints had come from any other source but opinion of internet users, who happened to be who elected the seven wonders in the first place. Schicchi 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't care who started it. They are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please see the policies I have already directed you to at WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:N. RANDOMINTERNETPEOPLE ARE NOT NOTABLE CRITICS. NOR are they RELIABLE critics. Like I've said at least three times now, if the media proper covers it, THEN you can add it. Random forums are ALMOST NEVER reliable sources --Laugh! 04:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth

The spanish site shows links to Google Earth for each of the seven winners, ¿Do you think adding this would work for the english version? Schicchi 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be redundant- the individual attractions should have coordinates on their pages, which should link to google earth. There's no point adding that here --Laugh!

[edit] Confusion over Chichen Itza & Machu Picchu

I apologize if this is idle and worthless chatter, but I feel it needs addressing...

Chichen Itza and Machu Picchu are the ONLY "new wonders" that are actually cities. Machu Picchu is said to have been home to 25,000 people - in effect, it's a city.

None of the other "new wonders" are cities - they are monuments, statues, buildings and incredible effigies. I don't know - perhaps this is all moot because it's been "officially" decided that Machu Picchu and Chichen Itza are the winners. But does anyone else think it odd that those two wonders are cities?

And not to mention two VERY notable pyramids of antiquity at each site. Why weren't the Temple of the Jaguar and the Kukulcan (sp?) Pyramid the finalists?

64.48.149.46 03:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record Petra was a city too. GraemeLeggett 09:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also Timbuktu was and still is a city (although much less prominent from its peak).

[edit] No header

I just added the China remark and fear, the brief ancient history of the original list from herodotus to aid researchers on the flashbacks regarding the original 7 wonders.

--Florentino floro 11:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] İnterwiki

tr:Dünyanın Yeni Yedi Harikası--Uannis 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] seven wonders of the world, DNS_KARIUKI@YAHOO.COM

is the DUBAI ISLAND listed as one of the 7wonders of the world

No. It doesn't fit the criteria for having been completed before 2000. In any case, this forum is not a place for discussing whether or not the final list is right. Whippletom 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Tom

[edit] Spamming blog links

The section on Cambodia has had a spammed blog linked to it as a reference. In fact the entire Cambodia section relates the outrage of this one 'prominent writer' who also seems to have a single purpose account here. I mean forget any reaction from the Cambodian government - that wouldn't be notable. I've been reverting this blog spam elsewhere, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. In fact we now have almost exactly the same paragraph in the Angkor Wat article. Considering AGF and all that, I've been trying to explain that spamming blog links is not ok on their talk page User talk:Khmermusic - but apparently to no avail. Rather than me reverting the lot, Could one of the good Guardians of the Wiki above rewrite the Cambodia section or remove it entirely to avoid giving this spammer any more hits. Cheers, Paxse 14:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite it, but it's just one pissed-off guy, so I remove it entirely. - DavidWBrooks 14:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well done David! Paxse 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overly negative

Isn't the first section of the article getting a bit too negative ? First: If the Foundation makes some money, part of it will go to "good causes". There is no mention of that (ok, it may need a qualification as for the money flow through the NOWC, and a second is, whether that is a good way to finance restoration; all that is a valid point of discussion). Second, in six years Weber has reached 100,000,000 voters (if proven). That is smart marketing, you may like it or not. Third, a lot of people have had fun in thinking up lists: the number of viewers of the event (if proven) also is an achievement . These are relevant things for an entry in the category Tourism Corailrouge-eng 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, as a side issue (and I'm getting to be a bit of a pub bore on this) they claim they make zero profit - a lot of people here choose to not believe that, but no one has yet provided a link to contradict itWhippletom 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro seems a bit overly negative. Could some of it not be moved to the criticisms section? The bit mentioning the terms and conditions in particular seems argumentative, borderline editorialising. I reckon most telephone voting schemes would have the same condition about refusing votes, not in order to fix the competition but to stop block voting if (say) a government voted a million times. There is a lot of implied criticism in this article, but no overt proof. Can we not just have a bit more good faith? The one thing n7w have done that seems a little disingenuous is blurring the line between themselves and UNESCO, but even then I think we can lose the word "thoroughly" in the opener - that is editorialising, and in any case the link speaks for itself.Whippletom 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Tom

In fact, most of the third par in the intro is only covered in the intro - so it is not even a summary. Can it be moved to the criticisms section, with a short pointer if necessary ("NOWC have been criticised however for a perceived lack of transparency and fairness in the voting process" would do - although, as a side point, I'm not sure how people expected them to conduct a vote except through the internet and telephones. The Amazonian tribes may feel disenfranchised, but that seems pretty inevitable)?Whippletom 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry for putting my previous text on top, I had put it elsewhere) I do not think anything needs to be taken out of the first section but some positive things could be put in: the number of voters, viewers of the event and the 50% to good causes (only from N7WF/NOWF, not NOWC, okay) are all things which have made all the newspapers, after all. I noticed the Portuguese translation calls the event "recreational", and i think they have put things nicely into perspective that way. I agree "thoroughly" can be omitted from the UNESCO line. The shortcomings in the voting deserve mentioning, but it isn't clear yet if this is something important: it is not clear at all what is going to be done with the list. The n7w have stated that the money earned, can be spent on any other project. Corailrouge-eng 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If nothing is taken out of the intro, then something has to be added elsewhere. Surely the intro should only summarise - and at the moment it states stuff that is repeated nowhere else.Whippletom 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose to change the second paragraph in the introduction to something like: N7WF/NOWC claim more than 100 million votes were cast. The vote was not a representative one. Multiple votes could be cast, for example, and there were big differences in awareness of the campaign between different regions in the world. and move the information with these and all the other shortcomings in the current 2nd paragraph, to a separate section, or the criticism section, with an appropriate header. Corailrouge-eng 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless this can be cited to a published, reliable source, it sounds a lot like original research. Remember that as per WP:VER, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --Kralizec! (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It is all in the current Wiki. The first sentence is almost unchanged. The second sentence contains a conclusion which follows from the third sentence and the criticism section. For the 3d sentence: Multiple voting is in the current text already. The regional awareness thing is in the Newsweek and LATimes articles (Jordan&Brasil big thing, Italy never heard of it, Chili and Britain indifferent etc.). There is nothing more in the sentence than there is in the Wiki already. It is just resuming/rewording and shifting the details to a later section. Corailrouge-eng 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with your sentiment, I would be extremely hesitant to add verbiage like "The vote was not a representative one" to the article's introduction without a specific, direct reference. It just sounds too much like WP:OR. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I see. The deduction has to go. Corailrouge-eng 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
So, something like N7WF/NOWC claim more than 100 million votes were cast. Major shortcomings of the vote were the possibility of multiple voting, and big differences in awareness of the campaign between different regions in the world. and move details and the other shortcomings down. Corailrouge-eng 14:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose to add to the first paragraph in the introduction something like: announced in a televised event ... . Organizers say that, they will use part of the revenue from this and subsequent events, to set up, or contribute to, restoration projects in the world. The criticism section can contain the info that these projects, except one, are yet to be specified. Corailrouge-eng 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
That all makes sense to me - the par at the moment certainly belongs in the criticism section rather than the opener.Whippletom 17:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan part in the criticism

Does this really fit in the criticism section? If anything, this reflects the 'successfulness' or 'popularity' of the campaign in Jordan -- the fact that people liked it and were enthusiastic. I understand where that comes from -- that a lot of votes have been made from a single country, which might mean the results are biased, etc.. but that's just not the way to do it. I don't know, it just seems.. weird. Maybe a section completely dedicated to concerns about the accuracy of the results? Eshcorp 10:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

While I understand your perspective, "success" is not the word that comes to mind when I read that a country of under seven million people made fourteen million votes. --Kralizec! (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have changed "Criticism" to "Reaction" as the header. Does that cover it? (By the way, I'd love to take the UNESCO quote out of that box, which is visually jarring and gives too much weight to it, IMHO - but I'm afraid I'll screw up the reference). - DavidWBrooks 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Have to agree with you on the quote box. I moved it to a {{cquote}} tag; how does it look now? --Kralizec! (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Much better, in my humble opinion. - DavidWBrooks 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Kralizec, I understand what you mean and I agree with it. But if that is to really be considered criticism, maybe the phrasing could be changed to something like "Some people are skeptical since.." or something. Eshcorp 08:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berlins article

"I am distressed that the list of the seven so-called new wonders of the world, revealed in Lisbon on Saturday, is being taken even semi-seriously, with the media running stories as if the result were some kind of legitimate decision by legitimate people. It's not. It is a total unmitigated phoney, and yet I fear and predict that this list will soon become a fact and find its way on to Wikipedia." Marcel Berlins, The Guardian, 11 July. [10] Paul B 22:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where has Mr. Berlins been for the past nine months? This Wikipedia article was created back in October 2006 [11]. Regardless, as indicated by WP:VER, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible POV

Because of the election method, these votes reflected only the opinions of those with access to the Internet or telephones, and included multiple votes that could be bought from NOWC by any individual, organization or government.
The above sentence in the lead looks like a POV for me. Can a citation be provided on it? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 10:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It might seem like POV, but there's nothing in there but fact. The votes were conducted via telephone and internet- so people without access were unable to vote. Anyone was allowed to buy multiple votes. That's just how it was --Laugh! 10:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The UNESCO statement (quoted in the article) makes the same point and can serve as a reference. Abecedare 10:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, it would be accurate to state that
UNESCO distances itself from the campaign stating that the votes reflected only the opinions of those with access to the Internet.
because that is all the reference claims and nothing about the multiple votes. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 11:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The website itself states that you can buy multiple votes, though, so it is completely accurate. This is a matter of fact, not who says what. As far as WP:V goes, the voting website again supports that entire sentence. --Laugh! 11:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Beg your pardon, but which website? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The official website for the company where the voting took place. I don't recall the URL off the top of my head, but they made both of those facts overwhelmingly clear by themselves.
I will wait for the URL then. Thanks! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 11:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
They (new7wonders.com) took down their faq, but it's available on archive.org here: http://web.archive.org/web/20070522025911/www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=604&L=0
See SECTION II: VOTE VIA PHONE AND SMS, point number 11, which states: "Can I call or SMS and vote as many times as I like? Yes."

[edit] Attributes of competitors

One should point out that only one of the competing "new wonders" of the world has the attributes "civilization" and "democracy", the Parthenon of Athens. These are attributes that everybody should cherish and respect nowadays but, however, it appears that play no significant role to those that voted for this completely unjustified and commercial project.

I believe that in the article should make at least a passing statement to that effect and users should express their own opinions as to how the results reflect on the current state of the world affairs.

Metron.ariston 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you, by any chance, Greek? Dear God, lighten up. It's just a bit of fun. And this is just an encyclopedia - have your debate elsewhere. Do you really think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to say "These are the seven that won, but actually that shows that the duplicitous people of the world don't care about civilisation or democracy because if they did the Parthenon would be in the top seven"? Whippletom 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am, is it relevant to the facts that I have stated? I have not put the attributes of the different competitors on the related article, I simply read them and wrote a comment. Is it not the purpose of the encyclopedia to list facts and related opinions? Are you responsible for this article in Wikipedia and you "suggest" that I take "my debate" elsewhere?

No, not related opinions - that is definitely not the role of wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks 16:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which received more votes

Right now, in one place it states that Jordan contributed 14 million votes to Petra (despite their small pop) and that Taj Mahal received 13% of ttl votes, 13 million votes, being the most popular wonder.

So which is most voted, Taj or Petra? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Jordan figure is sourced, and the India one isn't (although nowhere in the Jordan figure does it say that all of those 14 million voted for Petra). Also, the India figure has to be wrong because whilst 100 million voted, everyone voted for seven wonders - so the calculation does not add up. I'll change it a bit for now. Whippletom 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Partially fixed now

[edit] GA failed

  • Comprehensiveness is the main problem. This event has been widely covered across the world, so in short, 6.5k on main text is quite short. Moving onto specifics,
    • Needs to discuss the procedure for starting with 177 candidates, and then shortlisting to 20. The explanation about the rules and criteria are very sparse.
    • Later part of history section consists of a few standalone sentences. These need to be expanded on as most of these are notable parts of the info
    • "Federico Mayor, a former UNESCO Director General, is the president of project's expert panel as an individual" does not make sense and seems out of place
    • Needs to include reaction from a wider range of countries, not just a few.
    • Some more data about the nominees in the table would be good.
    • Since you seem to have some data on the actual votes, this needs to be expanded. Vote stacking, campaigning, advertising campaigns that are notable.
    • Need more about social impact.
  • References are not in order
    • Some are before, some after the punctuation mark. Needs to be immediately after
    • Full reference with dates, author etc, need to be used.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy toledo - that's not a wikipedia "good article," that's a six-month investigative piece for The Atlantic! But since the whole flash-in-the-pan is over, I predict interest will fade quickly and nobody will bother doing much of it. - DavidWBrooks 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
LMAO I agree with DavidWBrooks, this article shouldn't even be named New Seven Wonders of the World since it not official and unrecognized by the United Nations or any governments. It should bee renamed "New Open World Corporation's 7 Wonders People with internet access or a cell phone and paid a fee voted for and a wonder that already existed but it'd be dumb if it didn't win so they already had an automatic spot. So it's really the 8 New Fake Wonders." AMAPO 18:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Include shortlist of 77?

I added the following in June and it was deleted a few days later with comment "Is this even relevant? A shortlist of sites! It takes a huge chunk out of the article's spaces. Maybe it should get its own articles."

I think it's relevant as, from the 177 recognized nominees, the 77 sites with most votes were what the 21 shortlist was drawn from: "At the end of December 2005, a panel of experts, headed by the former Director General of UNESCO, Professor Dr. Federico Mayor, will look at the 77 global highlights with the highest number of votes and pick 21 to go through to the final round." Sep 2005 I also suspect the list is in vote order, but I can't see any way to prove that.

On other matters, I think

  • the other-13-from-the-shortlist-of 21 should be reduced by getting rid of the pictures. They currently share the same prominence as the 8 winners, which is inappropriate. Including images in an article for prettiness rather than information is a Bad Thing. Or just use the 77 table instead of the 13 table which is a subset of it.
  • the cheesy "attributes" assigned to the 21 finalists should be reinstated. The fact that they're a load of hooey is in this instance not an argument to exclude them as unencylopedic, since it provides evidence of the marketing/PR aspect of the whole enterprise.
  • it needs information on how the longlist of 177 nominees was done: seems to be an unstated minimum email count to get listed as an official nominee "150 nominee sites, from all over the world, are already listed online at www.new7wonders.com. However, the same number of sites again are pending, awaiting the required number of nominations from members of the public to be opened for voting." Jan 2005 jnestorius(talk) 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortlist of 77

The shortlist of 77 from which the 21 finalists were selected, with finalists highlighted, and in the order given by N7WW:[1]

Monument Location Country
Great Wall China
Potala Palace Lhasa, Tibet China
Taj Mahal Agra India
Colosseum Rome Italy
Pyramids of Chichen Itza Yucatan Mexico
Statues Easter Island Chile
Leaning Tower Pisa Italy
Eiffel Tower Paris France
Machu Picchu Peru
Red Square and the Kremlin Moscow Russia
Sana'a City Sana'a Yemen
Palace of Versailles Versailles France
Alhambra Granada Spain
Angkor Wat Cambodia
Statue of Liberty New York City USA
Sagrada Família Barcelona Spain
Hagia Sophia Istanbul Turkey
Sydney Opera House Sydney Australia
Petra Jordan
Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco USA
Timbuktu Mali
Meenakshi Temple Madurai India
Imperial Palace Kyoto Japan
Empire State Building New York City USA
Aachen Cathedral Aachen Germany
Doge's Palace Venice Italy
Golden Temple Amritsar India
Acropolis Athens Greece
Brihadeeswarar Temple Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu India
Annamalaiyar Temple Tiruvannamalai India
Bahubali Gommateshwara Statue Shravanabelagola, Karnataka India
Santiago de Compostela Cathedral Santiago de Compostela Spain
Houses of Parliament Budapest Hungary
Stonehenge Amesbury United Kingdom
Neuschwanstein Castle Füssen Germany
Mahabalipuram Tamilnadu India
Goeltzschtal Bridge Vogtland Germany
Dhammakaya Cetiya Bangkok Thailand
Cologne Cathedral Cologne Germany
Frauenkirche Dresden Germany
Giralda Seville Spain
Pyramids of Giza Giza Egypt
Lotus Temple New Delhi India
Terracotta Warriors Xian China
Prague Castle Prague Czech Republic
Forbidden City Bejing China
Kapell Bridge Lucerne Switzerland
Tower of London London United Kingdom
Big Ben London United Kingdom
Petronas Towers Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
Olympic Stadium and Park Munich Germany
Kiyomizu Temple Kyoto Japan
Sigirya Rock Citadel Sri Lanka
Houses of Parliament London United Kingdom
Mezquita Cordoba Spain
Abu Simbel Aswan Egypt
St Paul's Cathedral London United Kingdom
Pyramids of Teotihuacan Mexico
London Eye London United Kingdom
Charles Bridge Prague Czech Republic
Saint Peter's Basilica Rome Italy
Ranakpur Jain Temple Rajasthan India
Christ the Redeemer Rio de Janeiro Brazil
Mount Rushmore South Dakota USA
Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Spain
Nazca Lines Peru
Mont Saint Michel Normandy France
Burj Al-Arab Hotel Dubai United Arab Emirates
Sistine Chapel Rome Italy
Royal Palace Madrid Spain
Greenwich Observatory London United Kingdom
CN Tower Toronto Canada
Valley of the Kings & Queens Egypt
Newgrange megalithic passage tomb County Meath Ireland
Aqueduct Segovia Spain
Panathinaiko Stadium (Kallimarmaron) Athens Greece
Panama Canal Panama

[edit] Discussion

I agree we should dump the photos of the non-winners, as they just slow down the loading time for no reason. I don't think the "attributes" should be added to the table, since it bulks it up unnecessarily; perhaps a sentence or two could be added to the text, talking about them to convey the PR aspect of it, but who cares which ones were assigned to which monuments. And personally I don't think we need to list the 77, which seems gross overkill, but if we decide they need to be in there, let's do them in paragraph form - otherwise the page is humongous! - DavidWBrooks 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't share your concern about the size of the page. Is it motivated by concern for people with slow internet connections? There are plenty of much bigger pages. Is it motivated by a desire to have the size of the article commensurate with the (in)significance of the topic? I don't think that's ever been a consideration in Wikipedia. I find the list of 77 interesting. For example, quite a few sites in India were nominated that I (and probably most Westerners) have never heard of. And I don't believe paragraph form is suited to this kind of information: the gain in compactness of layout comes at a cost in readability. (Having previewed the below mock-up, it's not as bad as I expected—I could live with it—but I stand by my comments.) jnestorius(talk) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Potala Palace, Lhasa; Leaning Tower of Pisa; Sana'a City, Yemen; Palace of Versailles, France; Sagrada Família, Barcelona; Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco; Meenakshi Temple, India; Imperial Palace, Kyoto; Empire State Building, New York City; Aachen Cathedral; Doge's Palace, Venice; Golden Temple, Amritsar; Brihadeeswarar Temple, India; Annamalaiyar Temple, India; Bahubali Gommateshwara Statue, India; Santiago de Compostela Cathedral; Houses of Parliament, Budapest; Mahabalipuram, India; Goeltzschtal Bridge, Germany; Dhammakaya Cetiya, Bangkok; Cologne Cathedral; Dresden Frauenkirche; Giralda, Seville; Lotus Temple, New Delhi; Terracotta Warriors, Xi'an; Prague Castle; Forbidden City, Bejing; Kapell Bridge, Lucerne; Tower of London; Big Ben, London; Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur; Olympic Stadium & Park, Munich; Sigirya Rock Citadel, Sri Lanka; Houses of Parliament, London; Mezquita, Córdoba, Spain; Abu Simbel, Egypt; St Paul's Cathedral, London; Pyramids of Teotihuacan, Mexico; London Eye; Charles Bridge, Prague; Saint Peter's Basilica, Rome; Ranakpur Jain Temple, India; Mount Rushmore, South Dakota; Guggenheim Museum Bilbao; Nazca Lines, Peru; Mont Saint Michel, France; Burj Al-Arab, Dubai; Sistine Chapel, Rome; Royal Palace of Madrid; Greenwich Observatory, London; CN Tower, Toronto; Valley of the Kings & Queens, Egypt; Newgrange passage tomb, Ireland; Aqueduct of Segovia; Panathinaiko Stadium, Athens; Panama Canal

[edit] Finalists cont'd

Well, nobody responded, so I've removed the photos from the finalists and dropped that list below the country reactions (which, IMHO, is much more interesting). I've also added a sentence to the text mentioning that the group made up "attributes" and assigned them to each. - DavidWBrooks 12:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-proft?

The intro says the group is a non-profit - I've never seen any evidence for this. Can anyone confirm? 71.191.42.242 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek footnote #1

The first footnote to Newsweek is a dead link, it goes to the Newsweek homepage. It is the most referenced footnote in the article. Seems to be a problem, no way to verify. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References badly needed

Current references neither provide head office credentials nor evidence that the organizers are non-profit. I've placed a template asking for trustworthy information about.

Regards, --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove?

In addition to the current criticisms on the talk page, all the edits, counter-edits, and accusations of vandalism seem to suggest removing this article till more facts seem forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.238.242 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't spend much time on wikipedia! This is standard operating procedure. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)